Serge E. Hallyn [serue@us.ibm.com] wrote:
| > | I suppose you could just create /dev/pts/ptmx and /dev/pts/tty.
| > | Recommend that in containers /dev/ptmx and /dev/tty be symlinks
| > | into /dev/pts.  Applications don't need to change.  If
| > | ptmx_open() sees that inode->i_sb is a devptsfs, it gets the
| > | namespace from the sb.  If not, then it was a device in /dev
| > | and it gets the nmespace from current.
| > 
| > But we would still depend on user-space remounting /dev/pts after
| > the clone right ? Until they do that we would access the parent
| > container's /dev/pts/ptmx ?
| 
| Yes.  Which is the right thing to do imo.

Hmm, that sounds reasonable, although slightly inconsistent with pid-ns,
where pid starts at 1 regardless of whether /proc is remounted.

But even so, if user fails to establish the symlink, clones the pts ns
and tries to create a pty, we would end up with different pts nses again ?

i.e
	/dev/ptmx is still a char dev in root fs
	clone(pts_ns)
		( In child, (before remount /dev/pts))
		open("/dev/ptmx")
		open("/dev/pts/0")

Since ptmx is not in devpts, we use current_pts_ns() or child-pts-ns
Since /dev/pts is not remounted in child, we get the parent pts-ns from

If we can somehow detect the incorrect configuration and fail either
open, we should be ok :-)
inode.

Suka
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers